I agree. We need to know what exploitive play looks like and what perfect poker vs. perfect opponents looks like. Then we are able to adjust to as needed. We can't adjust if we don't know.
Of course, at the lowest of stakes when exploitive play works 90% of the time, it doesn't matter much. But almost everyone is learning and improving their game, so if we arent' doing the same, we will be left behind.
Good luck and God bless.
No. It's funny because I've heard this fallacy a lot and I assume because in most applications it would make sense logically. You want a baseline so that you can learn what the most profitable deviations would be. That's not the case in poker because you're playing a game of incomplete information.
What you want to learn first as your baseline is what the highest EV play would be in a given situation IF your opponent didn't know how to adjust properly. Then you need to learn PLAYER TYPES, and how those personalities think about poker, what their motivations are and how to exploit them.
I wish poker was as easy as just learning some GTO common scenarios, but it's not. It's way more difficult than that, but it starts w/ exploitive play imho.
And just as a side note, from someone who has played at all levels of poker for 14+ years online, when you learn exploitative play, you will start to understand GTO play much better. A majority of the strategies I was employing before GTO was really something players used, I was already implementing (you can watch videos of my talking about balanced frequencies over 10 years ago online, before it was a thing, and many people used to laugh at the idea, now it's considered common sense). There's not many scenarios (minus a few) that I look at a GTO calc and I'm surprised by its solutions because you will understand balance and frequencies extremely well when you really learn exploitative play.